I think Mike Vick needs to string together one great season before we even talk about him as a top 10 QB in the game today. He is so far away from the Hall discussion right now, it's not even funny. He is an amazing athletic talent, but he hasn't put the numbers up there when it matters. It's not all his fault, but his being in the Hall will depend on actual numbers. His numbers right now are absolute crap.

He has had one great season. In '02, he was phenomenal. Obviously, he needs to reattain that level, and play at that level for four or five years in a row to be in the discussion. Along with a Super Bowl ring, and a M.V.P award.

He will, at the end of the day, be Atlanta's leading passer and runner. Which tells you a lot about the quality of the Atlanta Falcons franchise, before Arthur Blank took over.

Final thought on Alexander: I'm not saying he won't get into the Hall of Fame. I am simply saying that right now, his resume is a little lacking, and he needs to put together a few more seasons to lock it in. He was not on my list because of the injuries in 2006 and his consistently very good (but not great) work from 2000-2003 (half his career).

He has had one great season. In '02, he was phenomenal. Obviously, he needs to reattain that level and play at that level for four or five years to be in the discussion. He will, at the end of the day, be Atlanta's leading passer and runner. Which tells you a lot about the quality of the Atlanta Falcons franchise, before Arthur Blank took over.

Vick's 2002 season was interesting statistically. I wouldn't say it's a Hall-worthy season, but it speaks about the uniqueness of Vick in general. Regardless, 2002 is 5 years ago, Shiver. That's a looooooong time in the NFL. The fact that he hasn't put together any kind of follow-up is hurting his overall reputation. Unfortunately, I've been saying for 3 years that Vick is the most overrated player in the NFL. I like his style of play, and I hope he has success, but 1 good year 5 years ago doesn't mean squat to me.

After 02, people were calling Vick a top 5 QB, when he never actually played the QB position. I never saw it like that. A lot of people tend to overrate his athleticism and underrate his deficiencies as a QB. I think the last 5 years have lessened Vick's stature, but he is still considered a star, which is weird to me because he doesn't usually put up star numbers.

After 02, people were calling Vick a top 5 QB, when he never actually played the QB position. I never saw it like that. A lot of people tend to overrate his athleticism and underrate his deficiencies as a QB. I think the last 5 years have lessened Vick's stature, but he is still considered a star, which is weird to me because he doesn't usually put up star numbers.

You of all people should understand the short sighted manner in which people evaluate players. Tony Romo made the pro-bowl based off of one good month, for example. In '02, he was a top-5 NFL QB. Since then, his 'stats' have declined. Even so; he has still been decent as a overall player. Even setting a few NFL records. Obviously there has been debate as to why his passing stats since his first year as the starter have declined. I don't feel like getting into that one, beating that dead horse again.

I resent the statement that he wasn't playing the QB position, when if any other Quarterbacks attained a 3,000 yard, 2:1 TD/INT ratio, 13 Yards Per Completion, season they would have been noted for having a solid year. He led a mediocre team into the playoffs, with several notable come from behind efforts where he willed his team back in games, even winning on the road in Green Bay in the playoffs. Football Outsiders' metrics, he graded out as a top-10 passer, which when combined with his 777 yards rushing and eight touchdowns, made him a top-5 NFL QB in the '02 season. All the hype that came from that season, had merit. The hype has died down as of late, migrating to Vince Young.

What YFS was saying; what if Michael Vick become had four, or five great years in a row from here on out? I don't think anyone seriously thinks Michael Vick should be a serious contender for the hall of fame. He was just throwing out a hypothetical.

I think rings mean a lot less to certain positions than others. LT's are workhorses. You look at the production of others around them to help measure their worth. To me, Hasselbeck and Alexander wouldn't be nearly as effective without Walter Jones sealing off the left side for them every play of every season. A ring would be nice, but I don't think it will hinder him.

Hasselbeck and Alexander even being mentioned in football discussions today is thanks to: (1) Mike Holmgren, one of the best coaches in his era; and (2) The Seahawks moved from the AFC West to the NFC West. They have no business whatsoever in a HOF thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsaza2358

2002 MVP was Kurt Warner
2003 MVP was Steve McNair.

2002 MVP was Rich Gannon.
2003 MVP was shared by Peyton Manning and Steve McNair.
(Manning should won outright, but whatever.)

Bsaza, I notice your posts are often incorrect, at least of late. It doesn't hurt to check your facts before posting, especially as I like reading your posts.

I think you have to consider that Alexander had Hutchinson and Jones to run behind, plus a very competent QB in Hasselbeck. For 2002 and 2003, what the heck did LT have in the form of an OLine, coaches, or QB play? Nothing. He put those numbers up in the tougher AFC in the very tough AFC West against 8 and 9 man fronts. LT is a better all around back than Alexander. It's just fact.

Hey Baza can I suggest adding Jason Taylor to the Lists? He should be next to Strahan. His numbers over his career are pretty sick. He is only behind big Mike in Sacks for active players and has a few years behind him to catch up. Not sure if he ever will but his numbers will put him into consideration for getting in (maybe not 1st ballot but eventually perhaps)

I agree with you over Thomas, I think the only thing that hurts both of them has been the fact that their team overall has never gone to the AFC Championship/ Super Bowl. But that has been because our offenses have been horrid since Danny retired mainly and poor coaching. That and alot of Miami guys rarely get in. (I am curious how Richmond Webb will do, doubt he gets in, but he was dominating for 10+ years)

I actually looked up the MVP awards, and it said 2002 MVP was Kurt Warner. I think that was because it was the 2001 season, and the award was given in 2002. The site I looked on must have been in error. It was the first one I saw on Google. Thanks for finding the error.

Hey Baza can I suggest adding Jason Taylor to the Lists? He should be next to Strahan. His numbers over his career are pretty sick. He is only behind big Mike in Sacks for active players and has a few years behind him to catch up. Not sure if he ever will but his numbers will put him into consideration for getting in (maybe not 1st ballot but eventually perhaps)

I agree with you over Thomas, I think the only thing that hurts both of them has been the fact that their team overall has never gone to the AFC Championship/ Super Bowl. But that has been because our offenses have been horrid since Danny retired mainly and poor coaching. That and alot of Miami guys rarely get in. (I am curious how Richmond Webb will do, doubt he gets in, but he was dominating for 10+ years)

Figured toss JT out there to consider. Pretty good numbers for a DE.

Career numbers are actually very impressive. I could consider him on the "likely to make it" list, but not as a lock. Updated list coming soon.

Hasselbeck and Alexander even being mentioned in football discussions today is thanks to: (1) Mike Holmgren, one of the best coaches in his era; and (2) The Seahawks moved from the AFC West to the NFC West. They have no business whatsoever in a HOF thread.

To be fair, Alexander's overall numbers were quite decent while splitting time with Ricky Waters in the AFC West back in the day. He put up fine numbers before Walter Jones and before Hasselbeck really developed. Holmgren played a huge part with the scheme and design, but I'm not going to knock individual players for working under him. That's like saying that Favre's Super Bowl title is counterfeit because Holmgren was the coach...

You of all people should understand the short sighted manner in which people evaluate players. Tony Romo made the pro-bowl based off of one good month, for example. In '02, he was a top-5 NFL QB. Since then, his 'stats' have declined. Even so; he has still been decent as a overall player. Even setting a few NFL records. Obviously there has been debate as to why his passing stats since his first year as the starter have declined. I don't feel like getting into that one, beating that dead horse again.

I resent the statement that he wasn't playing the QB position, when if any other Quarterbacks attained a 3,000 yard, 2:1 TD/INT ratio, 13 Yards Per Completion, season they would have been noted for having a solid year. He led a mediocre team into the playoffs, with several notable come from behind efforts where he willed his team back in games, even winning on the road in Green Bay in the playoffs. Football Outsiders' metrics, he graded out as a top-10 passer, which when combined with his 777 yards rushing and eight touchdowns, made him a top-5 NFL QB in the '02 season. All the hype that came from that season, had merit. The hype has died down as of late, migrating to Vince Young.

What YFS was saying; what if Michael Vick become had four, or five great years in a row from here on out? I don't think anyone seriously thinks Michael Vick should be a serious contender for the hall of fame. He was just throwing out a hypothetical.

I apologize for the unnecessary harshness. I overstepped my bounds there, and it was unfair. I didn't take the Vick suggestion as a hypothetical, which is why I reacted that way. No worries. When Vick has 4-5 great seasons in a row, you can say "I told you so"...

I'm not calling for all of them to make the Hall right now or right after retirement, but eventually, all of them should be in. I figure this list is no longer than the actual list of players in from any period of time in modern NFL history.

I mentioned younger guys who have started out well as examples of why my list was so short. Thanks for completely missing the point...

No I understand your point, I just hate when people crown younger players who have a good season or two. I'm not saying you are or were, it just makes me mad when people do and I wasn't entirely sure what your point was exactly.

My note below the original list was to keep people from saying, "how can Shawne Merriman not be on your list. He's a god..." It was more of a disclaimer than anything. I was focusing on players with at least 7 years of service (a solid career).